Ron Paul? Really?

(Updated below)

I’ve been going to New Hampshire off and on for the last three weeks to see my brother. Week before last, I got off the highway to take the scenic route along the coast, then cut inland and went north to where my brother lives, and I noticed something fairly…odd. Ron Paul lawn signs everywhere. They outnumbered the Giuliani signs, the Romney signs, and the Hillary signs combined.

Now, I don’t want to make too much out of this, but I grew up in NH surrounded every 4 years by the primary machines of candidates from the excessively well-financed to the shoe-string-and-a-prayer. There are certain patterns that come with lawn signs, and very small but occasionally stunningly-accurate predictions can be made from watching them.

For instance: the Giuliani/Romney/Hillary signs are concentrated along the heavily-traveled coast road, Rte 1, the oldest and arguably, mile for mile, the most commercially over-developed highway in the nation. They were all mass-produced, obviously by the campaign, and placed in advantageous positions like somebody had worked it all out in advance. Very few just popped up at you where you might not expect them, which meant, of course, that they were all clustered in the same places. When I moved inland, they all but vanished.

By contrast, the Paul signs were scattered hither and thither like weeds sprouting in unused corners. Most telling, perhaps, many of them were hand-made. That wasn’t terribly unusual 40 years ago, but nowadays campaigns are so controlled and tightly-organized that it’s almost unheard of. I can’t remember seeing hand-lettered, hand-drawn political lawn signs in NH since John Anderson’s quixotic campaign in 1980 (not counting, of course, the hardy, off-center fringe whacks who make signs boosting everybody from Pat Paulsen to Lyndon LaRouche – a perennial primary favorite of the barking mad contingent of NH Pub righties – to Bugs Bunny).

There were fewer of them inland than there were on Rte 1 but unlike the signs from the campaigns of the major candidates, they didn’t disappear altogether. They kept right on materializing, seemingly out of thin air, in places off the main drags – private homes, usually. Some were remarkably crude, others had been lettered by someone with reasonably good penmanship.

In a way, there’s nothing particularly surprising about this. NH Republicans love mavericks and Paul is about as maverick as they come. What is unusual this early in the primary season (the mass of campaign-supplied signs won’t be in place for another month) is that they’re there at all, and for a candidate whose NH organization is, shall we say, underfunded.

What struck me almost immediately was the aura I was picking up of a grass-roots movement simmering under the radar. I’ve seen this before in Democratic primaries – the Anderson campaign in ’80 and the Gene McCarthy campaign in ’68 – but I think this is the first time in a Republican primary.

I’m going to go out on a slight limb here and suggest that what these signs may mean is an unexpectedly good showing in NH for Ron Paul – 3rd, possibly even 2nd. Given a Pub field led by a New York mayor who’s doing well in the NH polls but turns the stomachs of the kinds of people who turn out for the Pub primaries, an ex-Mass Gov NH voters know and heartily despise, an ex-favorite who’s changed beyond all recognition (personally, I think McCain will be out after an embarrassing loss in the NH primary), and a clutch of out-where-the-buses-don’t-run candidates so far to the right they’ll be competing with LaRouche for the John Birch Society vote, I suspect we could be looking at the potential for a real upset in February.

So, in the spirit of helping the Republicans along on the self-immolating path they’ve chosen with their eyes wide shut, I offer this suggestion for Mr Paul’s campaign song.

Update: After writing this, I ran into a piece from last week’s Boston Globe that may explain at least part of what’s going on – and it’s a little scary.

Late on a balmy Friday night in Wicker Park, a gentrifying neighborhood just northwest of the Loop, a small tribe of 20-somethings gathers outside a corner bar. Their leader, a petite, energetic 25-year-old named Meghann Walker, hands out leaflets to people heading inside.

“Do you guys know Ron Paul is going to be in town tomorrow?” Walker asks a short-haired young woman in jeans and flip-flops. “There’ll be a lot of good people there, that’s for sure.”

“Cool,” the woman replies.

Walker, a waitress and anthropology student who lives in Chicago, cried on Election Night 2004, crushed that Democrat John Kerry had failed to unseat President Bush. Last year, deeply disillusioned with the Iraq war and with politicians of both par ties who had failed to stop it, she began a political odyssey that transformed her into a libertarian Republican.

Now, she spends “every free moment” campaigning for Paul, a Texas congressman who vows that if he’s elected president he’ll abolish the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve, let younger workers opt out of Social Security, and – alone among the GOP field – immediately withdraw all US troops from Iraq. She even has business cards identifying herself as a volunteer Ron Paul organizer.

“I don’t really see my friends anymore,” she said. “My new friends are the Ron Paul Meetup group.”

Yikes.

60 Responses to “Ron Paul? Really?”

  1. ray says:

    I live in Austin Texas and their is a TON of Ron Paul signs here too. Alot of homemade ones as well. And I havn’t seen signs for anyone else exept maybe a few Obama bumper stickers .

  2. I am not at all surprised. If we are to believe the statistics, and there is no reason not to, 70% of the public is against the war. At least 25% of that number is comprised of Republicans or people who voted for Bush in the past two elections. Who can these people turn to? In the GE, if Hillary is the nominee I could see some voting for her but at this point we are talking about who on the right represents their views and Ron Paul is the only anti war Republican candidate.

  3. chris lawton says:

    GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
    RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
    Best Ron Paul video – (Reply: WRONG!…Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

  4. daveg says:

    So, in the spirit of helping the Republicans along on the self-immolating path they’ve chosen with their eyes wide shut…

    Thanks for the interesting post.

    Voting with their eyes wide shut is a good summary of what liberal voters are doing when voting for Hillary. That’s a vote for four more years of war, for sure.

  5. lester says:

    as Tancredo is to immigration, he is to small government. the current adminstration (and legistlature) virtually cries out for this kind of candidate, as they all have clearly taken the position that DC is the place for them to divert all uor money towards what they know is best for us. the righties want warrentless wiretapping and endless wars, the left socialized medicine and the fairness doctorine. Both are trying to hide the fact that the federal government is largely obsolete. Is invading countries that aren’t a threat to us worth 3 trillion a year? DC 2007 is the new America On Line. No reason to have it. Bulldoze the Beltway!

  6. Looks like you’re brinin’ em out the woodwork Mick!

  7. Nancy Robbins says:

    ” “I don’t really see my friends anymore,” she said. “My new friends are the Ron Paul Meetup group.”

    Yikes.”

    -I don’t see what the surprise is here? It’s natural for friends to change as interests and hobbies change. When you meet new people who are like-minded and working for a common goal, you become friends with and spend more time with these same people. How is that a “yikes”?

  8. B. Chen says:

    “Scary” and “Yikes”? Read the concluding chapter of Ron Paul’s new book A Foreign Policy of Freedom, and you’d understand why we Ron Paul supporters are so dedicated and excited. Ron Paul is a statesman, not a politician. The Left vs Right, Republican vs Democratic divide is outdated and antiquated, especially in a Ron Paul Meetup group. Ron Paul Volunteerism is an ideal America where people from across the political spectrum work together, and individually, for peace, civil liberties, the Constitution and DECENTRALIZATION.

  9. mick says:

    It’s a “yikes”, Miss Nancy, because cutting off all your old friends to spend all your time with a single-minded group around a single identity and with a single purpose is what defines the behavior of a cult. It is NEVER healthy and it can be dangerous. Do I think it’s dangerous in this case? In the sense that she’s cut herself off from alternate views and is limiting herself to unquestioning support for a libertarian so irrational on everything except the war that he’s constantly on the verge of dementia, you bet I do.

  10. Brad says:

    Thank Goodness for Free Thinking Peoples who do not just believe what they are told.

    I notice more and more that people have stopped attacking Ron Paul and decided that because their are a some people that have concluded that ultimate evil is upon us and those people are for Ron Paul that this some how negates his candidacy.

    One does not have to run to the extreme to see that things are not right.

    Did Ted Kennedy Kill Someone? Did He Leave The Scene Of The Crime? Is He Still In Office?

    One Example of many if one is willing to look.

    To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish. People will always act in their own self interest.

    The Message Is More Important Than The Man. Educate Yourself On The principals that Ron Paul Stands On Before You Dismiss Him Out Of Hand For The Support Of The Fearful.

    Not To Do So Shows Ineptitude Of Cognitive Reason.

  11. Buddy says:

    The typical American now spends over one-third of the year working to pay the taxes that the Federal leviathan demands. If we try to enter a trade, profession, or business, we find ourselves drowning in stupid regulations. Meanwhile the Fed quietly creates dollars, imposing a silent tax on our income and any property that we have somehow managed to accumulate.

    In effect, we are all slaves. Ron Paul is a new Emancipation Proclamation.

  12. Tom Woods says:

    So Ron Paul is irrational on “everything except the war.” So he’s irrational in opposing the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, violations of habeas corpus, and the drug war? Is that your view?

    Ah, the left. Their government lies and lies and murders and murders, but they’re absolutely certain that this is just the institution to make our lives better. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

  13. D. Saul Weiner says:

    Mick,

    I would say the real “yikes” is that while the federal government (Repubs and Dems alike) is running our country into the ground, with its endless war, spending, and the destruction of our rights and liberties, the majority of voters have their heads in the sand, stuck in their programmed thinking and loyal to parties who sell them out day in and day out. Thank God for people like Meghan Walker who grasp what is going on and have committed themselves to purposeful action.

    And as a fellow member of the Chicago Meetup group, I can assure you that your concerns about Meghan are completely unwarranted.

  14. Ha. It looks like Lew Rockwell decided he didn’t like your update Mick. The original post has now “disappeared” from his site. To quote Mr. Woods above, “Talk about cognitive dissonance.”

  15. Todd Mason says:

    Ron Paul is not exactly a new development, folks. Where have you all been? Yikes because his proposals and arguments have been Libertarian and libertarian fodder for years…though I’m glad he’s realized the error of his ways in regards to the death penalty. And John Anderson was running in the Republican primary in New Hampshire in 1980, and came close to winning…the Massachusetts primary, as well. Those early returns help give him the impetus for his independent general-election campaign.

  16. NH says:

    “What is unusual this early in the primary season (the mass of campaign-supplied signs won’t be in place for another month) is that they’re there at all, and for a candidate whose NH organization is, shall we say, underfunded.”

    Ron is NOT underfunded and just raised $1M in a week online.
    Also, we’ve had commercial signs since June so where the hell do you get this homemade sign thing?
    Those are from people not on the internet I guess.

    I gave out 200 signs just today alone. Geesh. If you’re going to write a blog, make it accurate.

  17. Doug says:

    Not only is Ron Paul the only anti-war Republican candidate, he’s the only anti-war candidate with a chance to win.

    Props to Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd for opposing the war, but Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all made it clear they plan to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely, and one of them will be the Democratic nominee.

    Ron Paul still has a chance, given his growing grassroots support, and the fact that the Republican front-runners are all deeply flawed. Anti-war voters need to register Republican, though, to support him — as distasteful as it might seem.

    We need to do it now, too — the primaries are coming up earlier than ever, and have early deadlines for changing parties.

  18. Evidence of delusion: Believing Ron Paul can actually win the election.

  19. Abouthadit-phil says:

    That’s right Kyle, show your handlers that they’ve done their jobs. You should google Besmenov and listen to how you have been manipulated. Ron Paul can win and will win as long as we have a paper ballot trail. The bankers fear him and they know how to cheat.

  20. Abouthadit-phil says:

    make that Bezmenov and search YouTube.

  21. *sigh*

    Nothing to do with my “handlers” as you say. Everything to do with polls, media coverage, and, well screw, political science, really. And that’s just for the primary, which is much more at the whims of the base, which is not the most anti-Iraq war crowd.

    Then youhave to talk about the general election, and I can’t even BEGIN to list off all the ways he doesn’t have a chance in that.

    Further, bankers afraid of Ron Paul? You’ve got to be kidding. Paul’s a full on libertarian, meaning, mass deregulation and good bye taxation. The microscopic government Ron Paul would put in place would essentually mandate a coperatocracy-a banker’s wet dream.

    I’m not trying to go too in depth, Matt mentioned something or other about wanting to write another post on Paul, so I’ll let him take it from there.

  22. Laura says:

    Kyle’s handlers? I WISH Kyle had handlers; he never lets me get a word in edgewise about Ron Paul and libertarianism.

  23. I’m so refraining from shooting off an inappropriate joke right now.

    so proud.

  24. Gloria says:

    I take real offense at what you said, especially in your comment response to people wondering why you said “yikes.” I am a 24-year-old who is spending more time with those in the Ron Paul Meetup group and less time with my friends. Why? We only have a limited time to get this done, and I’d like to spend my free time on trying to change this country for the better. There’s nothing wrong with that. Some of my friends have also become really big Ron Paul supporters, even some that are die-hard Democrats.

    If you think that Ron Paul is “bordering on dementia,” I will not take the obvious route and turn that phrasing around on you, but I must say you are simply mistaken. Dr. Paul is one of the– if not the most– lucid and clear-thinking politicians out there. He realizes that this country (and the people of this country) don’t have an endless money tree to keep plucking to fund endless government programs and foreign wars, he realizes that civil liberties should not be rejected no matter what the circumstances, he realizes that integrity comes from actions rather than words (look at what he says and then take a look at his record– it perfectly matches up), and he realizes how great the Constitution is and that it should be followed.

    If Ron Paul has dementia, I wish that every politician, every senior citizen, and every American could have a similar dementia!

  25. D. Saul Weiner says:

    Evidence of delusion: thinking that you know the future.

  26. Laura says:

    Aaah, c’mon; go ahead. You’ll feel better. Just remember, I’m a bit older than you, so that respect for your elders thing might apply.

  27. taters says:

    Do we really need a FAA?

    If I wanna get shitfaced and drive a car, isn’t that my business? I mean as long as I don’t hurt anyone, right?

    Why do we have mining regulations? They know what they’re getting into.

    States and local municipalities should decide if they want public education.

    Why should I have to be insured if I drive?

    If a 12 year old kid can put in 60 hours a week at a steel mill, why shouldn’t a company be able to hire him or her?

    I t should be legal to get a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle off the internet, w/armor piercing capabilities, without a background check or proof of ID. We have too many laws on the books as is. And if terrorists and the military have rocket launchers – well shouldn’t I be able to get one?
    me
    WHY SHOULDN’T FIRST COUSINS BE ABLE TO MARRY? Where in the constitution does it say anything about that? I challenge you.

    If you, like me, want government off your back – vote Ron Paul!

  28. HAHAHAHAHA; Taters. Nice.

    Saul: Nope, don’t think I can see into the future, but I’m pretty confident of the people that might actually be our next president, Ron Paul isn’t one of them. Look, as far as integrity goes, I give him more credit than I do most Republicans, and his faith and adherence to the Constitution is admirable, I suppose. But comparing integrity to the average Republican means little, and (oh boy, here we go) just following the constitution alone isn’t enough. That’s why it is a “living document” Perhaps the wisest part of the Constitution is that it was left open, with amendments capable of allowing it to evolve with society.

    But you can’t govern the Union on the Constitution alone, you just can’t.

    (Talk about DNFTT; that should be about a friggin banquet)

    Laura… the whole respecting the elders deal is waht I was talking about. I mean, all this talk about HANDlers…

    *Sigh*

    nevermind

  29. FZappa says:

    Get ready for President Ron Paul. He’s going to be a great one.

  30. matttbastard says:

    Holy fuck, it’s like a big ol’ flaming shitbag of stupid exploded all over the thread.

    TBS FTW!!!1

  31. Kevin Houston says:

    Taters,

    Just because Ron Paul points out that the Constitution doesn’t have anything to say on the subjects you mention, doesn’t mean he is for those things.

    He is *for* letting the states decide those issues.

    The question isn’t: will we have Government regulation, of course there will be regulation. The question is: at what level of government will the regulation take place. Ron Paul (like most libertarians) is merely saying that the regulation should not be at the Federal level, except for those things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (Army, Navy, customs, commerce betweeen states, etc.)

    We aren’t anachists, after all, we’re minarchists.

    Later.

  32. To_Rule_is_2_Destroy says:

    Do we really need a FAA?
    So your saying here, is that the airlines, and the pilots that fly airplanes, really want to have tons of accidents? I will remember that the next time I get on a plane, that Capt. Jones really wants to commit sucide but only goodness of the FAA keeps him from doing so.

    If I wanna get shitfaced and drive a car, isn’t that my business? I mean as long as I don’t hurt anyone, right?
    So when are you going to turn yourself in?

    Why do we have mining regulations? They know what they’re getting into.
    Again the mine owners they want cave ins to occur. For the same reason Airlines want planes to crash.

    States and local municipalities should decide if they want public education?
    I went to my kids school the other night, and I now have prangs of guilt. The place, with its pale white walls, felt more like a prison, or hospital, then a place for children. Of course since I pay 6200 a year in property taxes. I can’t afford to send them elsewhere, but thats my problem and I will deal with it.

    Why should I have to be insured if I drive?
    Of course Mr. Progressive, forcing poor people to have insurance, hinders their ability to get to work. I would think you would be for this, since your probably also for the monopolization of the transportation industry, ie licensing of cabs, taxis, buses, etc. Which again drives up prices, again hurting. You guessed it, our poorer citizens. In your rush for fairness, you hurt the very people you want to help. Now thats what you call a conundrum aint it?

    If a 12 year old kid can put in 60 hours a week at a steel mill, why shouldn’t a company be able to hire him or her?
    LOL You havent been in a steel mill before I take it. But sure lets force a 16 y.o. kid that hates school, and would rather be making money to sit, be bored to tears, and get put down by his teachers and fellow students. Smells like teen spirit!

    I t should be legal to get a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle off the internet, w/armor piercing capabilities, without a background check or proof of ID. We have too many laws on the books as is. And if terrorists and the military have rocket launchers – well shouldn’t I be able to get one?
    Of course these things go for about 10 grand, but hey if you got the money. Seriously is there a reason you have to go that draconian? Face it, it sucks but people are going to wack people. And have since the beginning of time. Of course if your a little girlie here in the Soviet Social Republic of NJ, and have a stalker, they might rush through your Gun License in what? Four months? But don’t worry you can always get a restraining order. Cut me a break.

    WHY SHOULDN’T FIRST COUSINS BE ABLE TO MARRY? Where in the constitution does it say anything about that? I challenge you.
    It worked for Rudy!

    If you, like me, want government off your back – vote Ron Paul!

  33. James Blund says:

    I’m one of those guys who had given up on BOTH major parties until Ron Paul came along.

    After years of apathy, not even bothering to vote for “the lesser of two evils” (I usually couldn’t decide who the “lesser” evil was), I’m not only voting for Ron Paul, I’m helping the campaign.

    I paid $100 to attend a Ron Paul fundraiser (thats a lot of money for me, I don’t earn much) in San Antonio that was better attended that a Barrack Obama fundraiser I was working at (I’m what is sometimes referred to as a “rent a cop”)- and this is in a heavily Democratic town.

    Dr. Paul has a great deal of appeal to those who may not normally be part of the political system. I think his support is far wider and deeper than the media and his opponents think.

    BTW, I’m seeing Ron Paul signs around San Antonio- never see any signs for any of the other candidates- even the ones with “fat cat” funding like Hillary and Rudy.

  34. lester says:

    I agree that it is at least superficially creepy that the girl has lost touch with her friends and is so immersed in the Paul campaign.

    At the same time, there’s no reason to be so smarmy and hostile to people.

    Get overe the fact that there is a contingent of people who support ron paul and not any of the corporatly chosen candidates. If you aren’t intersted in their position don’t address it.

    more to the point, why not cover the guy like you would any other candidate?

    It doesn’t look good for you to appear to be so threatened by a call for small government. You bloggers have more than enough material coming out of the beltway as it is. 50% less government created scandals / disasters won’t put that much of a dent in your topic possibliities.

    and hey, if you run out of new stories you can go back and do where are they now stuff on Claude Allen, ahmed chalbi and those guys

  35. matttbastard says:

    Get overe the fact that there is a contingent of people who support ron paul and not any of the corporatly chosen candidates.

    I have it on good authority that Kraft Foods has made a sizable contribution to the Paul campaign.

  36. Laura says:

    Smarmy and hostile? Now, you take that back! These are nice boys over here; they’re real gentlemen. They’ve been unusually restrained and polite from what I’ve read. I don’t think I’ve seen anybody ever endorsing another candidate here. Pretty much everyone running for office gets roasted over the hot coals at this place and I’ve witnessed some good bbqs here. It’s an equal oppportunity place. Except when it comes to philosophies that mean dismantling EVERYTHING. I was raised by wolves, I mean Libertarians, so this has been an interesting read for me.

  37. Thank you Laura. To the best of my knowledge, I think I’m the only one that has actually endorsed a candidate, Barack Obama, but I’ve roasted him on several occasions as well.

    I did a silly thing. I wrote a comment for this post, left it in a different post, so I’m copying and pasting it here: This is in response to Lester asking why we don’t cover Paul like anyone else, and goes kinda off of what Laura said:

    And that’s the thing, we do cover Paul like any other candidate, but your failure to recognize this is indicative of at least part of the problem.
    You dove straight into Paulisism, and everything in the periphery of that has ceased to matter. If you would have gone beyond just the typical pro Ron crusade, you would find that just about every presidential candidate has been the recipient of harsh criticism, and some, including Ron Paul, has received praise.
    My own preferred candidate (and I speak not for CFLF, but for myself on this), Barack Obama has even received some harsh criticism from me. It’s called realism, and if you subscribe to realism, the chances of Ron Paul actually making it to the presidency are infintessibly small. I don’t say this because I like or hate the guy, or because my “handlers” tell me to, I say it because it’s simple fact.
    Nor has Ron Paul been among the list of people I have predicted will not be president. But you have to look at the facts on the ground when it comes to him.
    Here is a guy who, despite having what appears to be an impressive net game, has no traction in the polls whatsoever, and is actually campaigning against the party’s base on the biggest issue of the day; Iraq. Further, because of his low stature, important organizations like the Religious Right who want to back a winning horse will thusly not be quick to join up and help him out. Besides, you have Mitt Romney to woo the corporate conservatives, you have Huckabee probably at this point most poised to winover the RR, and you have Giuliani heading the neocon front.
    These are vital power centers within the Republican caucus, and Ron Paul is not even close to gaining the support of any of them.
    Even further, you have to take a look at his ideology. By now I know full well the retort, “What’s wrong with following the Constitution?” But while that may sound great, in practice it doesn’t work. Paul is a hard right libertarian which, constitutional or not, is nowhere close to the mainstream, which makes him almost guaranteed to fail if he were to make it into the general election.
    I know you guys by now. you believe Ron Paul has a chance because he is right. He’s right about the constitution and how this country should be run. But let me reiterate Kyle’s first rule of politics: Being right doesn’t mean anything.
    I’m done with this conversation.

  38. *note, meant to say “believe he is right”

  39. Dave says:

    Kyle said:

    “But you can’t govern the Union on the Constitution alone, you just can’t.”

    Sure you can. At the FEDERAL level. Otherwise why did the founders write the damn thing? Read the 10th amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Hard lefties and hard righties love big government because they (depending on which party is in power) can impose their personal opinions on everyone else. The constitution was written specifically to limit the power of the federal government and to secure our rights.

    Legislate all you want at the state or the local level. If I don’t like the way you legislate, I can move elsewhere. Don’t get your panties all in a knot because you can’t force me to act the way you want.

    Most Americans do not like the way our country is headed. We will not, and can not, get out of this mess unless and until we restore our constitution. Wouldn’t you rather be FREE to argue the things dear to your heart? What’s going to happen to you if you continue to support big government and the other side wins?

    Taters: Read the 10th amendment and don’t be stupid.

  40. Jeff says:

    >By now I know full well the retort, “What’s wrong with following the Constitution?” But while that may sound great, in practice it doesn’t work.

    In practice, that is the oath of office of the Prez, every member of Congress, every soldier, and every civil service. By allowing them the wiggle room to evade their oath and not hold them accountable, you are the one who enables them to trash it.

    If people are worried about the strict small govt element of Ron Paul’s personal philosophy; then recognize that there are 534 medium/big govt members of Congress. In practical terms, a Ron Paul Presidency will mainly result in a dramatic increase in Presidential vetoes. Which is IMO a great thing and which no one could actually view as dangerous/extreme. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate for Prez in either party who will actually view his own office in constitutionally limited terms.

    Of course, if you want an Emperor – but an Emperor who coos sweet nothings in your ear; then do not be surprised when that is what you get. And don’t be surprised when that Emperor realizes that they don’t need to coo sweet nothings in your ear the day after the election. After all, you’ve just given them all the power they need – and you have done so explicitly knowing that they will run over everyone in their path.

  41. Fluffy says:

    With regard to whether the woman in the article is showing cult-like tendencies, I would simply ask how many people you know over the age of 25 who still hang out with their friends from their early 20’s every day. Frankly, I remember my 20’s as a time when people dropped out of social groups like flies. Some people had children, some got new jobs, some moved to new cities. In my personal case, at 21, then again at 25, then again at 31, and then again at 35, I could easily have said, “I never see [insert contextual group of friends here] anymore.” That’s just how it goes.

    But on the subject of Ron Paul in general, the question of whether or not he can win really isn’t relevant. I don’t think Obama can win, or Richardson, or Huckabee, or Romney, or McCain, but that doesn’t make their supporters “silly” for giving it a shot. All of those candidates are guaranteed losers, but for some reason none of their supporters have to apologize for supporting a “quixotic” candidate – only Paul supporters do. Why is that?

    There’s also the question of what kind of political defeat you make when you get beat. I think history tells us that Goldwater showed that sometimes if you go over the falls in a barrel you get beat in the near term but it’s worth it in the long term. Paul has a ways to go before his campaign is big enough to have that kind of an impact even in defeat, but he’s on the right trajectory for it. He’s lived his political principles for long enough that now when he rides out against the Republican establishment and lets them knock him down, it just makes them look bad. And the longer he takes their punishment, the less the future of the party belongs to them.

  42. Jeff Smathers says:

    My sincere concern with those on both sides of the [Democrats and Republicans] playing field is, they have been brainwashed for so many years by partisan politics and the old “them v.s. us” football mentality and is so engrained, that they will vote for their parties candidate instead of what is good for our nation. Again, do what is good for our country and not ANY individual or organization or special interest group.

    We all can see the extremely controlled media guiding any focus on Ron Paul away from their viewers and base….Why? The corporations and government infrastructures which rely on the existing vias of corruption from both sides don’t want the restrictions of our Constitution interfering with their desire to make a buck or hold power..

    A good man is measured by others by the respect he shows to those he disagrees with.
    The foolish are measured by the degree to which they mock the others they do not understand.

  43. matttbastard says:

    A good man is measured by others by the respect he shows to those he disagrees with.
    The foolish are measured by the degree to which they mock the others they do not understand.

    Oh fuck right off. And a pompous ass is measured by the signal-to-noise ratio of his or her empty bloviating.

    Here’s a clue: I am Canadian. I come from a country with a multi-party Parliamentary system. For years I was a member of a third-party that got–and still gets–the shaft from the media and political establishment. So I’m well acquainted with how much jealously the ruling class grips the reins of power.

    So fucking what?

    That’s entirely irrelevant to my scorn re: Ron Paul. Can’t speak for the rest of my co-bloggers, but the reason I scoff at Ron Paul is that he has consistently proven himself to be a goddamn loon who would drain the Federal bathtub quicker than you can say Grover Norquist. He’s a racist, anti-choice conspiracy monger who, if elected, would immediately roll back every societal advancement achieved since the New Deal–hell, since the Progressive era–until the US is back to the Gilded Age (and completely isolated from a globalized economy that will happily leave y’all behind in a fucking heartbeat).

    That may appeal to you; it frightens the fuck out of me and anyone with even a millilitre of common sense.

    So, dubious brownie points to RP for being an ideologically consistent nutcase, as opposed to pathological (or opportunistic–take your pick), like the current crop of GOP pygmies; that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw my (moot) support behind him just because our interests happen to converge in one area.

    Srsly – feel free to keep spamming with your delusional righteousness. But don’t kid yourselves. There’s no way in hell Ron Paul will get the nomination for the same reason the hawks couldn’t ‘win’ in Iraq and can’t ‘win’ the GWOT: faith never trumps reality.

  44. matttbastard says:

    (Sorry, Laura – I can only stay ‘restrained and polite’ for so long. ;-))

  45. Laura says:

    That’s OK. I was sort of chuckling while I typed my defense of you guys. (I covered my eyes when I read your “10 reasons” post…)

  46. Anti Federalist says:

    Matttbastard:

    When will you “lefties”, both inside and outside the country, realize that the big government behemoth you find so neccesary will not always be run by kindly Mr. Rogers type characters dispensing free health care and lollipops?

    You created this monster now run by your inbred cousins, the “neo-cons”.

    And you are screaming bloody murder about it, because it’s now dropping bombs instead of alms for the poor. Well, you have no one to blame but yourself.

    And that is fact that will never go away, unless the government itself is restrained by the Constitution. (which is not some sort of “living” Doppleganger but a clearly written document that means what it says and says what it means.)

    Ron Paul 2008!

  47. Laura says:

    I mean seriously, who says, “Now, you take that back!”?

  48. Seriously, it’s like we’re not even here. I could say puppies are blue, and someone would probably come back with a “durka durka. constitution Ron Paul durka durka durka”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook